A Field Trip To the Creation Museum

Lillith writes "The anti-evolution Creation Museum opened last weekend and Ars took a field trip there and took lots of pictures. 'There were posters explaining just how coal could be formed in a few weeks as opposed to over millions of years, and how rapidly the biblical flood would cover the earth, drowning all but a handful of living creatures. The flood plays a big part in the museum's attempt to explain away what we see as millions of years of natural processes. There was also an explanation as to why, with only one progenitor family, it wasn't considered incest for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other.' (Myself, I liked the picture of the velociraptor grazing peacefully next to Eve, who is wearing some kind of dirndl, in the Garden of Eden.)" The reporter posted more photos from the museum on Flickr.

Comments

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't we be anti-"religious", if "religion" means promoting falsehood? Why should we give anyone a free pass to go on and on about nonsense without criticism?

Confused

[truthsearch]

Ok, I'm confused. What does the great flood have to do with creationism? Is it "evidence" of creation?

This just seems to validate that it's more of a biblical museum than a creation museum.

Re:Confused

[u-bend]

Ask a Christian about carbon dating, and they'll say "it doesn't exist" or "its full of errors." You don't really ever have to ask a Christian to explain anything, since their answer will inevitably be the ultimate academic cop-out: "God did it." Wait, wait, wait!!! Ask a Creationist, and they'll say that nonsense. I know plenty of Christians that are perfectly happy with evolution and science. Science and Christianity don't have to be diametrically apposed, as many absolutists would have you think. In fact, theology and science really occupy totally different parts of many people's lives.

Re:Confused

[u-bend]

And I think the music of boy bands suck large smelly logs, but that's beside the point. Science and religion are not the same thing, they shouldn't be made to compete in the same arena. Hating theology because it's not science is like hating apples because you can't make orange juice out of them. That's the entire fallacy of Creationism as a "science" that I was pointing out--it ignores scientific processes, Occam's razor, and all that good stuff, but still has pretenses at being scientific. Religion, on the other hand, although sometimes used improperly in an attempt to supplant science, serves a totally different purpose to vast numbers of people.

Re:Confused

[LordKazan]

and you missed the point of my post - if you're going to assert something is real, you better well have fucking evidence. Religion is asserting something is real, they have no support. Sure it "serves a purpose" as a comfort blanket, but it does so much more damage, including damage to those that don't adhere to it, that I consider it nothing but filth that should be utterly destroyed.

Religion is responsible for the supression of my rights, the mutilation of my body and of millions of other people (males and females alike), the pyschological damaging of millions of people, the death of even more millions, the cause of untold wars, the supression of sceicen and progress.

Religion thinks it should force everyone to be compliant to it's wishes. By now humanity should have had enough of this shit, but I'm continually depressed by how mindlessly guillable other humans are and they cede their intellectual sovereignty to religion.

Re:Confused

[swillden]

if you're going to assert something is real, you better well have fucking evidence

You have very strong faith in the scientific method, and that all knowledge of value can be empirically supported.

I don't.

I think there's a great deal that's true that will never be proven. Gödel's incompleteness theorems make clear that even in very simple systems there exist truths that cannot be proven. The structure of the universe is vastly more complex and expressive than Peano arithmetic, so there must be true statements about it that will never be provable within it. Even worse, our ability to prove anything is pretty severely limited by the measuring equipment we can construct, so there's undoubtedly a great deal that is true, and provable, but not by us.

Science is extremely valuable, but there's a great deal of what it means to be human that science really cannot touch upon. Moreover, some of what science would imply about man and our place in the universe is decidedly antagonistic to our sense of well-being and happiness. Belief in some personal relationship with a higher power fills a human need, and has significant personal and societal value, even if it's not provable, and, for that matter, even if it's not true.

I have proof that there is a higher power, but it's not proof that can be replicated in a lab experiment, because God doesn't want it to be testable in that fashion. You, of course, can point out how convenient that is for a believer to be able to say "I believe because I have proof, but I can't show you the proof, you have to acquire your own", and I can't argue the point. Nevertheless, it's the truth as I perceive it, after the experience of my own empirical testing.

Re:Confused

[Coryoth]

Science and religion are not the same thing, they shouldn't be made to compete in the same arena. Right, but then it has to compete with philosophy and metaphysics, and religion doesn't fare well on that front either. Religion tends to be philosophy that comes pre-hobbled with otherwise unfounded dogma and assumptions. It's always going to lose out to philosophies that are more open and free in their inquiries into the nature of things. Indeed, just looking at the narrow category of moral philosophy shows this to be the case: religion simply has its commandments, while other philosophies have far more compelling reasoning, from Kant's moral imperative, to various game theoretic evolutionary psychology approaches.

Hating theology because it's not science is like hating apples because you can't make orange juice out of them. Sure, but disliking religion because it is just bad philosophy is something else again.

Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[FatSean]

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

It turns man against man, because of different ancient social mores and savagely ignorant beliefs about the workings of the universe.

Glad I could accomodate you, as religion has been a particular pox on my existance.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[EastCoastSurfer]

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

Not arguing for religion here, but where do you think scientific proof comes from? Many times scientists take a belief they have and then set out to 'prove' it. Now they always don't find that what they believe is supported and should adjust accordingly, but don't think believing something w/o proof is wrong in any way. Lets not even get into what constitutes 'proof'.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[bedonnant]

you mistake intuition or theory for belief.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[faloi]

It turns man against man, because of different ancient social mores and savagely ignorant beliefs about the workings of the universe.

Because basic human greed won't turn man against man, amiright? I'll grant you that religion has been a smokescreen used many times to cover up human greed (whether it be for power, money, what have you), but in the absence of religion "might makes right" has stepped up to the plate on more than one occasion throughout human history.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[jaymzter]

How a comment like this gets modded Insightful is beyond me. I guess I can go burn any stories by Homer or Virgil I may have in my possession. Oh yeah, let's finish tearing down the Parthenon while we're at it. Not meaning to sound rude, but "belief in something with no scientific proof" is the foundation of some of Man's greatest achievments.

That being said, I like how the TFA author tried to imply an association between Creationism and anti-Semitism. I quit reading right there.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[div_2n]

I think it is better to argue that human corruption of faith is the underpinnings behind such misadventures. Furthermore, I would argue that in these instances, faith was the vehicle, the gullible nature of humans was the road and the corrupted "leaders" were the drivers.

Science COULD have the same effect on making people do seemingly illogical things. See the Milgram Experiments for reference. I would argue that if everyone ditched religion for science, it is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[Jeremi]

Not arguing for religion here, but where do you think scientific proof comes from? Many times scientists take a belief they have and then set out to 'prove' it.

A hypothesis is not the same thing as a belief. The difference is just as you said: when a scientist has a hypothesis, he does everything in his power to try and prove that his hypothesis is wrong (i.e he "tests it"). Compare that to when a religious person has a belief, and he does everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong.

but don't think believing something w/o proof is wrong in any way

It is if you refuse to reconcile your beliefs with the facts. Ask any Christian Scientist whose child died for lack of a blood transfusion.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[Billosaur]

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

Paraphrasing Contact:

Palmer: Did you love your father?

Ellie: Yes.

Palmer: Prove it.

We know all sorts of things. Our knowledge is vast, but compared to the infinity of space, insignificant. If nothing else, quantum physics teaches us that there are many gray areas, where things are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Belief and/or faith in something without scientific proof is not the death of Mankind -- belief and/or faith in something when the evidence before contradicts that belief/faith is where the madness lies.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[TheRaven64]

For one thing, it ignores the fact that a lot of progress happened by accident. Columbus set out to prove that there was a route to India by sailing west. He ignored a lot of evidence that the Earth was sufficiently large that he would run out of supplies about half way there. Fortunately, he found a continent in the middle where he could take on food. A lot of scientific discoveries have been made in a similar way; by people trying to prove things that we now think of as silly, and discovering some interesting contradictory evidence.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[N3WBI3]

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

Soviet Communism? Seriously I'm sick of the humanists regime of Stallin which, incidentally, spoke of religion in similar tones to your post killing Millions upon millions of humans and getting ignored.

It turns man against man, because of different ancient social mores and savagely ignorant beliefs about the workings of the universe.

Lets get one thing straight man does not need a reason to turn against man if not for religion they might do it for, oh, political systems or something. Religion has often been used as an excuse by those in power to get people to fight for them to get, well, more power. If tomorrow nobody on the planet believed in religion there would be a *short* period where things were a bit more peaceful but very quickly those with power would find something else to motivate us peasant folk. It could be eugenics, it could be democracy, it could be the environment, and it could be social justice.

Glad I could accomodate you, as religion has been a particular pox on my existance.

That pox would involve not being able to see the forest from the trees.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[MarsBar]

I can't believe this was modified "insightful" and I also can't believe I'm bothering to reply, but here goes.

These people aren't trying to disprove their theories, they're trying to find explanations that fit them. They therefore ignore all the data that supports the opposing view and weasel their way into a contorted version of reality where it's possible for these things to be the case. The science is based on (at best) invalid assumptions and (at worst) deliberate lies.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[ubuwalker31]

Obviously, you forgot about the incident where Texas Representative Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, Chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, distributed a disturbing anti-science and anti-Semitic memo to the other members of the Texas House of Representatives on Friday, February 9, 2007.

http://www.texscience.org/news/chisum-bridges.htm
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/t exassouthwest/stories/DN-evolution_14tex.ART.State .Edition1.298e1cb.html

Racism, Anti-Semitism and Creationism go hand in hand, IMHO.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[ZombieWomble]

Isn't that exactly the GP's point though? Some people come to the Grand Canyon, and say "Wow, look at this big hole, I wonder how it was made" and try to put together a theory to explain it (and other similar geological features). Creationists then come and say "Wow, look at this big hole, I wonder how it was made in keeping with the idea the earth is 6,000 years old".

This extra condition - made with little or no real reason beyond the Word or what have you - makes a world of difference in the scientific picture. I don't have the knowledge of geology to critique an explanation of the formation of the Grand Canyon in any detail (Well, provided its in any way coherent. But lets assume it's somewhat reasonable), so I won't bother asking for citations or the like, but I would expect that the need for the Grand Canyon to be created in a short time frame featured pretty heavily in the development of the theory.

By comparison, consider that not so long ago, suggesting the world was "old" was breaking the status quo in a massive way, going against both the religious and scientific establishments. People did not do this without a reason, and it took a significant amount of evidence from many fields to build a convincing argument for the case. It begs the question - why would people do this if there was a "simpler" young earth explanation? It can't have been the vast old-earth athiest conspiracy, since such a thing presumably didn't exist before people considered the idea of an old earth in much detail.

Preconceived notions are a significant weakness if anyone is serious about the scientific method, and any theory based around them should, I feel, be viewed with at least a touch of skepticism

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[DragonWriter]

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

Its also the foundation of the entire idea of inalienable human rights.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[Taevin]

Here's something we're not "making up as we go:" radiocarbon dating. Something the young earth creationists like to jump on is that it's "only" accurate up to ~60,000 years. That is true, but aren't they claiming the earth is only ~6,000 years old? We can date man made things back to a time before the Earth was created... which makes no sense if you assume man was created on Earth (and I certainly don't see these people suggesting that we're the product of a curious alien entity experimenting with creating life). People are trying to show that the grand canyon could have been created in hours? Alright, well I'm sure they could also try to show that the sky could be blue because someone got up there and painted it instead of being due simply to Raleigh scattering.

So they might be trying to prove their theory (anyone else think it's funny that they seem to feel the need to prove their beliefs to others using the same methods used by those they claim to hate for using methods that confuse and lead people astray from the clear truth of the Almighty?) but that doesn't shield them from comments or even ridicule from the outside. Scientists even ridicule other scientists when they come up with harebrained ideas. In the case of the young earth creationists, I have to agree with those that mock them and their attempts. These people are trying to prove a "theory" that takes more than a few liberties with the truth and is based on a premise that is demonstrably false.

Of course, I'm sure in response to evidence that the planet is older than 6,000 years they'll simply say God sucked out enough carbon-14 (whether as part of the creation process or to purposefully throw us off - by the way, why does anyone want to believe in a God that purposefully deludes us in an attempt to keep us ignorant?) to make it seem like things are much older than they are. There is the problem we evil science lovers have with these God issues. We could have a mountain of evidence and even God himself come down and tell them they're all morons, and they would still not believe and call our presentation of God a hoax (humorously, they'd probably say it was some trick of the devil trying to condemn them to Hell for believing in science). Part of the scientific process is peer review which includes others smacking you and your beliefs down when they clearly prove you are wrong. How can that process function when you can have a "God" response to every counterclaim?

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[jandrese]

Denial of blood transfusions for religious purposes is hardly a unique viewpoint of Christian Scientists. Next time the young guys in white shirts/black pants and a tie[1] come to your door, ask them what their position on blood transfusions is. There is apparently an obscure bible passage about not mixing blood or something that prevents them from taking blood transfusions. They'll be happy to give you a brochure on it if you ask.

[1] I can't remember if they were Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. I do remember getting it mixed up once and have them hand me another brochure explaining how they weren't the other guys.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[Anonymous Coward]

I must say... your slashdot user handle is quite appropriate.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[mosb1000]

"It is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda."

I'm pretty sure I've already seen this happen. The scientists involved usually seem to be unconcerned with the corruption of scientific principles. I've spoken with a microbiologist who was unconcerned, and he said that it was important for the most intelligent people to make all the decisions. To this end, he reasoned that people who were easily swayed by flawed science were rightly manipulated by scientists who deliberately misrepresented their findings. His aim was to become a public policy maker.

The view that most people aren't smart enough to make the best decisions for themselves is very troubling to me. It is one that I have heard many people express to me when they felt I would be like minded. Based on my personal experiences, I have concluded that most people feel this way (including most scientists).

People should be careful not to delude themselves into thinking that religion causes this kind of mass manipulation. It is always caused by people thinking they are smart enough to make decisions for others.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[Atroxodisse]

I would argue that if everyone ditched religion for science, it is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda. *cough* Global Warming *cough*

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[MadUndergrad]

Soviet Communism? Seriously I'm sick of the humanists regime of Stallin which, incidentally, spoke of religion in similar tones to your post killing Millions upon millions of humans and getting ignored.

Not a very good example, that. I'd hardly call Stalin a humanist. Anyhow, your example merely reinforces GP's point: the belief that a wide, heavy-handed enactment of communism would improve the welfare of the population of Russia is also a belief unfounded in scientific proof, empirical data or even anecdotal evidence. The fact that it doesn't have anything to do with a supernatural almighty being doesn't make it any less an unfounded belief.

It's funny. . .

[smooth wombat]

a local radio host had on an atheist the other day who refused to recite the pledge in its current incarnation because of the "one nation under God" part.

Someone came on and identified themselves as a Catholic and bemoaned how society has become "me first" and this was because of people not worshipping God.

That got me thinking, if the caller was upset about the "me first" generation then he should certainly have a problem with the biggest "me first"er of them all: God.

After all, God says that there will be only one God, him (her/it/whatever), that you must follow his rules and you must give thanks to him. If that isn't self-centered, I don't know what is.

As we can see from the exhibits (it's not a museum folks), apparently anything can be twisted enough to justify a religious rather than scientific or logical reason for something.

The really depressing part is now we'll have another generation of kids having their minds polluted by nonsense of dinosaurs living with man and the Earth being only a few thousand years old. I guess being oblivious to reality is the easiest way of getting through life.

Re:It's funny. . .

[drinkypoo]

Suppose for a minute that God is exactly what the Bible claims: an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect being. He is supremely beautiful and wonderful -- the best thing in all of existence. He would be remiss if He did not try to get us to enjoy Him since anything else would be vastly inferior to Himself. He is self-centered because He is the greatest thing in the universe -- to say that anything else is greater would be lunacy. Does that make sense?

The simple refutation to this argument is that if he wanted us to enjoy Him, as our creator, he could have made us predisposed to do so.

Now, supposedly he wanted us to have free will. But while we want our children to have free will, we want them to grow up with our values, as well. So we indoctrinate them. We use tricks of reasoning that they are not yet sophisticated enough to comprehend to make them believe what we want them to. There is no real difference between this, and god making us receptive to his message.

Thus I must conclude that one of several things is true. Either god doesn't exist, or god is not omnipotent, or god doesn't care about us.

The argument against this is that god has a plan, and that I simply can't comprehend it, because I'm just a human.

I may not be omniscient, but I can recognize bad parenting when I see it.

Re:It's funny. . .

[niloroth]

you did catch the "current incarnation" bit right?

I am also an atheist, and while not refusing to recite the pledge, i do leave the god part out. That part by definition excludes me, and as such i feel no need to include it. I don't really care when other people continue to leave it in, since it really just serves to prove the point that much of what people do with, and believe about, religion is truly bullshit. Most believers, and to be fair some unbelievers as well, would have no idea what the original pledge was, why it was written, or when and why the "under god" bit was added.

sadly, and getting back to the main point of this article, faith in magical sky wizzards if in this day and age not so much a statement of faith as it is of ignorance. Believers that i talk to have no sense of the history of their own religion, or even of any other religions. I can think of one christian in the last year that i have talked to who had even heard of the council of Nicaea. They don't know how or why their bible was put together the way it was, or their quran, or whatever 'sacred' book they happen to believe in. And as far as science goes, most people also don't have a clue, how else to explain the penetration that intelligent design has made into our society. I was watching The View a few days ago, don't ask, and Elisabeth Hasselbeck was happily promoting ID to the millions of people watching the show, that in my mind is simply a failure of people to grasp the very concepts of science, and the scientific process. And this was after she said "Look at the constitution, god is written all over the constitution." I have no idea what their real viewership is, but it scares me that there are people out there that now think that is fact.

I don't know if it is a good thing or not that there is not a creation museum, on the one hand it keeps all the nut jobs in one place, with their own made up versions of history, science, geology, cosmology, anthropology, and biology. On the other hand, we are letting them indoctrinate their children with lies and half truths. All so they will unquestioningly believe a myth. Many will never question it, or even bother to learn about it, or any of the other myths out there. They will just go through life with irrational beliefs that etiquette says we are not to question, which helps to keep the whole thing going.

Religion played a roll in our development as a society, but then again so did slavery. It is time to let religion go as well. My only fear is that in the end that will leave a gap in peoples lives that will still be taken advantage of frauds and con men, with scams like scientology and raelienism. But those at lease we feel less of a need to grant pardons to in the free exchange of ideas. And while they may be sue happy, no one has any problem pointing out that they are bat sh*t crazy. Although really, is it any sillier than the idea that a god sent 1/3 of himself to earth, to be born of a virgin, so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to pardon all of humanity for something he was punishing them for in the first place?

Okay, ranted long enough.

Re:It's funny. . .

[drinkypoo]

I think this is very much what it is like for God.

The bottom line for me is that if god wanted us to receive him he could have made us do so. Does this interfere with free will? Maybe. We don't give our children free rein, so that they don't go play in the freeway. If god is letting people go to hell when he could be saving them, then he's not a very nice person. Having read big chunks of the bible, I don't believe in a benevolent god. If I believed in one at all, it would be a malicious, petulant, and petty individual who kills people for not doing his will, but won't help them to do it.

Re:RTFA for lots of laughs!

[bedonnant]

It would be illarious if it weren't terrifying.
It's 2007 now. Not 1700.

I'm a devout Christian who knows God exists

[CrazyJim1]

Even though I know God exists, I don't try and fill in history that the Bible doesn't explain. I'm not sure why other people have this desire to do so.

Re:I'm a devout Christian who knows God exists

[drinkypoo]

Why can people not "know" God exists? I'm sure there are some Atheists who claim to "know" God doesn't exist.

Yes, and they too are wrong, because there is no evidence.

Why can you not accept that there is a difference between proof and belief?

Of course, the difference is simply an accepted one, agreed upon by everyone except for the religious... Since really, our senses are filtered by our brain and we really never experience anything in the sense that most people think we do.

Exclusiveness

[Findeton]

Only in USA you could see such a building, a museum worshiping stupidity.

Re:Exclusiveness

[TheRaven64]

I disagree. Worshipping stupidity is the closest thing humans have to a universal language.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[IdleTime]

Well, only in USA could could a creation museum be created. Why? Because if how religious this country is and how dumb most people are. If you believe in this bullshit, then explain how you can use a PC. If any of the creation shit was true, a PC would not be possible since the speed of light would have been changing and as such, a PC would fail.

Not to mention the flood is not possible nor did it happen. There is not a single geological evidence to support a global flood, not to mention it would have cover Mt. Everest, over 29000 feet of water in 40 days (960 hours) and it would have rained approx. 30 feet per hour. That's not rain, but hydraulic mining.
>br> This museum is an insult to everyone who are involved in science in some form, it's an insult to all logical and thinking people. This is only attractive to mindless religious idiots.

How come no one can make money with Flood Geology?

[Dr. Manhattan]

Mainstream geology pays off. It helps people find oil, coal, minerals, natural gas, water, etc. etc. etc. How come "Flood Geology" doesn't make better predictions about such things if it's really a better, more accurate theory?

Why don't creationists take the $20+ million they spent on the museum, and use it to apply "Flood Geology" to finding valuable mineral deposits and such? They could open a bunch of museums with the profits, and provide solid evidence for their "theory" that would make those 'deluded geologists' take notice.

Funny how they never seem to want to actually try to apply what they say they believe...

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Hijacked Public]

Because a more direct and effective route would be to skip right over religion and go straight to being be anti-falsehood promotion?

The US is looking more and more like the taliban

[cpotoso]

It is sad but true. A very "renaissance" of obscurantism. The US looks more and more like Iran or the Taliban. No science, no reason, only stupidity. This is the beginning of the end of the US empire. No doubt about it.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Mockylock]

So true.

I tend to steer away from most of those conversations. I know scientific fact and evolution, but I find it best not to fight over something that people believe in more than life itself. I guess that's what they're finding out in the Middle-East right now.

"We think you're being a bit harsh with the extreme religion, there. OOOoooh, you've strapped bombs to yourself. AND, you're willing to blow yourself up for your religion. I see, um... Maybe you're right about the 40 virgins. In the meantime, I'm going to go over THIS way."

A lot of people take it sooo seriously. I know I've talked to my grandmother about evolution, though Religion is a family tradition... and she didn't think anything of it.. but other people are incredibly sensitive for no reason. Strange.

It's awesome from the start

[Kabuthunk]

I love that third picture on the first page of Ars Technica's site in the article that states "Present changes are too small and too slow to explain these differences, suggesting God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly."

YES! Because nothing that we're directly looking at in the past few hundred years or so isn't showing massive steps in evolution, that's surely UNDENIABLE evidence that that it couldn't have EVER possibly happened in the past, and is therefore completely false! A VICTORY IS GOD!!!11! :P

Ahh, hilarity at it's best.

Re:the more we advance in science

[Archangel Michael]

Thank you for proving you yourself are much more dangerous kind of person than any right wing religious nut job.

Re:the more we advance in science

[Dr. Manhattan]

The more I think we seriously need to consider "weeding out the population" of all the dumb shits too stupid to accept fact...

Would that it were that simple. It's not. Humans don't naturally think in a scientific way. Doing it is hard. Even scientists who train for years have a hard time at at, and usually can only do it within the specific field they've trained in.

Of course, we can dream. And once it was thought that universal literacy was an impossible pipe dream... I can hope for universal scientific literacy.

Re:Problems

[Lemmy Caution]

"Tolerance" isn't just some blanket value which lets everything go. It goes hand-in-hand with a kind of skepticism about dogmatic claims and the absence of a moral teleology (that is, the idea that there is one way people were "meant" to live.) It doesn't mean you have to accept absurd or contradictory ideas, or lifestyles that are actively hostile and dangerous to your own.

I try to console myself...

[christian.einfeldt]

...by saying that somehow the benefits of democracy outweigh censoring even really dangerous, stupid shit like this museum.

At least we all get a good laugh out of this one.

And a good cry.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[nofrak]

Why could God not create a constant speed of light? I find it highly amusing how very dogmatic and knee-jerk the reaction to creationism is amongst the self proclaimed intelligentsia. I don't particularly approve of this museum (I think that if you believe in miracles, trying to explain them as science is a contradiction in terms), but good grief, get a hold of yourselves. Just look at how the normally reputable Ars launches into a pointless and irrelevant ad hominem attack at the end, seemingly out of spite. And while you're not exactly right that this could only happen in the US, it is one of the few places where people are allowed, unafraid, and unashamed to practice religion. It's not like they're making you go to it! Come on people, deep breaths.

Re:Just to present more than one side

[bedonnant]

problem is, creationists have no right to equal treatment, because that would imply that their "theory" is equally plausible with evolution, which it clearly isn't. Why the US media keeps fooling people into thinking there is some kind of scientific debate about it is beyond me (apart from obvious lobbying reasons). There IS NO DEBATE. Evolution is only named a theory because there are specifics that are still not well known, not because the global process involved cannot be backed up by evidence. Creationism is just wishfull thinking.

You dont explain nuclear fission to a caveman

[Anzya]

Ok, so maybe not a caveman but do they realy think that God would bother to explain to people who doesn't even know that there is atoms how he created the universe? It's what Pratchett calls Lies for children.
God - Ok so afte a couple of million years...
Secretary - Hold on, how much is a couple million years?
God - Sigh... ok so on the first _day_ I made light using what I like to call the Big Bang.
Secretary - Sorry that's too long and my hand hurts. I'll just write God made light on the first day.
God - Sigh....

I don't actually see that much problem with being both beliver of evolution and the Big bang and being a christian. I think the problem is that people read the bible like it was a book about natural science instead of what it realy is ie a history book and a book about ethics.

Re:Problems

[faloi]

How many thousands of children and impressionable adults will never even have the chance to learn basic tenets of logic, reason and science after being indoctrinated by a "museum" like this and the cooing, gentle voice of its proponents, telling children stories about dinosaurs living next to adam and eve and jesus?

It's, essentially, in the middle of no-where in Kentucky. The only people that are likely to visit the museum are people that already have their minds made up, or the children of those people. They'll already be indoctrinated.

If schools start mandatory field trips to the museum, we can talk. Until then, it's not likely to get visited by anybody who is "on the fence." People will either be going to take pictures and mock it, or they'll be going because it's a museum dedicated to what they already believe.

As a Christian... let me just say....

[gsfprez]

Falwell, Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, everyone on Trinity Broadcasting Network, and this stupid-ass museum...

PLEASE GO AWAY or SHUT THE HELL UP! You're fscking embarrassing.

Except TBN - you're Jesus pimps... which is far worse. The Bible has something to say about pimping God... and that He doesn't take kindly to it.

Re:the more we advance in science

[Experiment 626]

The more I think we seriously need to consider "weeding out the population" of all the dumb shits too stupid to accept...

Yes! Death to everyone whose theological beliefs don't agree with your own. That will show the religious extremists!

Re:Factually inacurate

[kalirion]

And can someone explain what is bad with a naked body?

Because God thinks it's bad. The tree of knowledge merely let them share God's knowledge. The tree of life would have let them share God's power, so God was scared shitless and overreacted the way he did. But it was all a part of his Plan.

Re:Problems

[DogDude]

What you have here is people who are deliberately spreading ignorance. They are actively attempting to undermine science and facts with complete and utter bullshit. I don't think that you're wrong for feeling how you feel about this. Science and reason consistently improves the lives of all people, and ignorance and superstition consistently leads to hate, intolerance and fear. Personally, I think that we, as a somewhat intelligent people striving towards better understanding of the world around us should denounce this project as the bullshit that it is.

You're talking about not stooping to their level of intolerance, and I understand that. However, some troglodytes (such as the people who started this "museum") are simply too dumb to be reasoned with.

Re:Factually inacurate

[TheRaven64]

The thing I never understood was that the fruit was meant to give 'knowledge of good and evil,' allowing them to choose between good and evil. Before eating the fruit, they were only capable of good, and yet were naked. After eating the fruit, they were still naked, but now they realised being naked was 'evil,' and so they must have been doing 'evil' while they were only capable of 'good.'

Re:Factually inacurate

[drgonzo59]

That's your (grand)*500.mother we are talking about, you instensitive clod!

Re:You're response is Biblically inacurate

[Otter Escaping North]

From the picture I've seen, there's no way to know if it was before or after she ate from the tree...so you can't really make that point. Also, She didn't make herself a skirt. 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Yeah, but if you've read your Bible then you know it must've been after - since Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Friggin' literalists can't even get the literal stuff correct...

Has any one seen it?

[TCFOO]

Has any one seen either creation or evolution take place? I know each camp has it's own examples on why their correct, i.e. different minerals at different layers in the earths crust, or how one giant rock in Australia is smooth. In my opinion if no one has seen it happen it takes just as much faith to believe one or the other.

Re:Factually inacurate

[EllisDees]

If they didn't know that being naked was evil, how could they have known that disobeying god was?

Re:Just to present more than one side

[bedonnant]

They have no right to EQUAL treatment. Would you like your child in school to be taught the Earth has a 50-50 chance of being flat?

Re:Factually inacurate

[Hoi Polloi]

That story makes God look like the lazy parent. "See this box of fireworks and matches? DON'T play with them! Got it? Whatever you do don't play with these incredibly fun fireworks that I'm going to leave in the middle of your toys."

Re:Just to present more than one side

[Overzeetop]

You are correct. Except in politics and love, there is generally a "right" and a "wrong" side. That's what's so nice about science and mathematics - eventually we will be able to sort out who was right and who was wrong, even if we aren't terribly certain of which side is which today.

Perhaps the difficulty here is that from the perspective of creationists, this a politcal issue, and for scientists it's a scientific matter. Similar tension exists in the global warming debate. For some people its a scientific discussion, but for many (on both "sides") it is more of a political issue.

FWIW, I skimmed your article, and was not impressed. It was a literalist baptist who got a bunch of warm fuzzies from the creatinist descriptions while his kids played with the dinosaur models. No doubt a fun day, but it sounded a bit like a [democrat/republican going] to a [democratic/republican] working group meeting while the kids played (Don't break the ice/Monopoly], and coming out energized and ready to change the world for the better.

FSM

[Mystery00]

May they be touched by His Noodly Appendage and realise the error of their ways. Ramen.

Re:How come no one can make money with Flood Geolo

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you realize this "museum" *IS* applying "Flood Geology" rather effectively.
Why bother finding pretty rocks, rock that burn hotter, or rocks that glow in the dark, and selling these to make money.
here they are, with one $20+Mil investment, they are mining the most rare and precious of all items. BELIEF.

This place will cause many of the "faithful" to open their pocketbooks and GIVE money away, and not expect anything in return except some vague promise of "eternal life" after they die.
This is the oldest, most effective con ever dreamt of by man. For religion IS a creation of man, not "God".

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Billosaur]

Well, only in USA could could a creation museum be created. Why? Because if how religious this country is and how dumb most people are.

Well, that and in this country we value freedom of speech. Let's face it: you and I might think these folks are first class loonies, but it does absolutely no good to denigrate their belief, because they have developed a system whereby there is no challenge to their faith that they cannot nullify. No amount of inconsistency in their world view is going to sway them. That's because belief is a core function, based on the rational part of our mind. We have to "believe" that the world around us is the way it is in order to function in it. We have taken that mechanism and applied it to things we cannot see or experience and that's where the trouble lies, because we can convince ourselves that things we cannot see are more real than things right before our eyes.

Let them be. They are only fooling themselves. I think it's safe to say that they are truly a minority group, and this is their chance to have a moment in the sun. The rest of us know better and can safely ignore them, unless they intend to force us to see things their way. Then the gloves come off.

Re:Factually inacurate

[AKAImBatman]

Being naked is not a sin. Looking upon the nakedness of others is considered taboo in the Bible. The Old Testament talks about special architectural requirements for towers so that others would not be able to "look up and see their nakedness". Jesus clarified the problem in the New Testament when he explained that lusting after someone you're not married to is a sin. (And one which I'm sure most men have fallen into at some point or another. That's why we have "Grace" per Jesus's death at the cross.)

So in short, Adam and Eve became self-conscious about their state of dress after eating the apple, because they were starting to understand the concept of sins and evil.

FWIW, both the museum and the story strike of flamebait. Not much good will come of this. In fact, this whole "war" between science and religion is doing horrendous things to both sides. Let science be science and let religion be religion. Don't try to make religion science and don't try to make science into religion. The former is bad because it misses the possible truths about God's universe. The latter is bad, because science can blind itself to its self-correcting design if those running the show dig their heels in too far. :-(

Re:The US is looking more and more like the taliba

[TheGratefulNet]

more than half the US citizens DEMAND that their president be 'a man of faith'.

did you notice, in all the recent debates, how GOD keeps being mentioned?

in the USA of jesusland, you CANNOT get elected unless you hang out under stained glass windows on sundays and eat cookies and drink wine. or so it seems.

(well, nothing wrong with a good wine/cookie break, every now and then; but its hardly an attribute I require in the POTUS)

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Maxo-Texas]

The hole in that logic is that we let them brainwash their children however they want.

And if they out breed us, eventually the majority of society will enforce those values on the rest.

Re:Oh God (lol)

[Novotny]

Well, you may have a point, but the thing with scientifc theory is that it never says 'this is true and everything else is wrong and we may not even question this theory, because that's how it is.' The whole point is that we don't know what we don't know, but we'll try to do our best to explain it and we will constantly re-evaluate what we've come up with so far and continually re-test and question what we're at. THAT's what I respect.

I've always had a problem with any sort of authority that refuses discussion.

I have little faith in "proof by anecdote"

[roystgnr]

Too many repetitions of "carbon dating said some rock was a trillion years old!" have soured me on this tactic, so if you want to bring in "the last oil field we found" as evidence, you're going to have to recognize that oil fields are found all the time and identify yours a little more precisely.

Your own anecdotes are more amusingly distorted than most, too. Usually creationists at least try to get the Bible right. Seven versus ten plagues isn't as big an error as years versus millions of years, but whereas the latter error is just sad, the former is kinda funny.

Re:Factually inacurate

[Otter Escaping North]

It actually comes down to being about free will. The whole point of the story is to point out that humans are not fighting against good and evil, but either choosing God's path or not choosing our own path. It was suppossed to be a choice, and God does not punish us for not choosing him, its that without him we make decisions that hurt each other and ourselves. That's the actual theology of it, for any of you who are interested.

I agree that you can approach it different ways; two of those ways being thematically and literally. As a thematic interpretation, I've got no problem with that take on it (even though I don't share those beliefs)...but we're talking about a group who has claimed to interpret it literally.

As a literal read; God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Everlasting Life (yup, two trees, kids!), and told Adam not to eat the fruit or they would die. The snake told Eve that was BS and that God didn't want them to eat the fruit because they would become more like Him.

They ate it. God lied (having said the fruit would kill them), and the snake told the truth (they became more like God). God expelled them from the Garden of Eden (the implication in the text being that He didn't want them eating from the Tree of Everlasting Life) and cursed them to a hard life (that was their punishment).

That's what my Bible says; and I've never heard a creationist/literalist cop to that story.

So, thematically - a useful representation of why one should follow God's path. Literally - a cruel con job on two innocents by someone who owed them better.

I've gotta stop reading this thread. It's driving me nuts...

Re:Problems

[Khomar]

"Tolerance" isn't just some blanket value which lets everything go. It goes hand-in-hand with a kind of skepticism about dogmatic claims and the absence of a moral teleology (that is, the idea that there is one way people were "meant" to live.) It doesn't mean you have to accept absurd or contradictory ideas, or lifestyles that are actively hostile and dangerous to your own.

But wait a minute -- who decides what is absurd or contradictory? To say that any idea is absurd or wrong means that you believe that there must in fact be ideas that are right and ideas that are wrong. This in turn implies that there may in fact be such a thing as a Truth*. This is an anathema to today's thinking that truth is relative to the individual. By what standards do you measure truth? What is the criteria you would use? Once you have established this criteria (let us call it dogma - a system of principles or tenets), you now have made yourself intolerant of anyone who does not agree with your criteria for determining Truth or, perhaps more accurately, the Truth that your criteria points towards.

You see, we are in a bit of a quandary. If there is no Truth, then you cannot judge anyone for anything. If there is Truth, then anyone who upholds this Truth will be labeled intolerant, but to not do so would be lunacy. So which is it? Is there such a thing as Truth, or is it all relative requiring a tolerance of other views? This is the big question of our day that no one really wants to think about, because if there is Truth, then we must be subservient to it even if it is inconvenient.

* I capitalize Truth to emphasize the idea of a fact that is inalienable and unquestionable.

Partly our own fault

[Tablizer]

I think many of the evo debators have exaggerated the evidence for evo and have become kind of fanatical themselves. Although I beleive in it, the evidence is *not* overwelming, and hyping it as such turns some away.

First off is the Cambrian Explosion. Most of the modern body plans (Phyla) came out of appearently nowhere. We don't have a good record of how they got the way they did. Suddenly there are lobster-like and fish-like critters swimming and crawling around eating each other. Nobody knows where they came from before that. It is even possible that early metazoans were able to swap genes with each other (perhaps via microbe infections), making their origin virtually untracable as tree-based decent.

Evo has not been demonstrated making large-scale complicated life-forms under full, controlled, and repeatable observation. Incrimental changes do not necessarily equal large changes. Lots of forces make incrimental changes. Thus, the "scale problem" is still out there. Making a beak grow larger is not the same as making brains and immune systems.

"Time ate my homework" is not good enough. Science is picky, I am just the mesenger.

Re:Partly our own fault

[nagora]

Your understanding of the cambrian is about 30 years out of date.

Evo has not been demonstrated making large-scale complicated life-forms under full, controlled, and repeatable observation.

And gods have been so demonstrated? I must have missed that one.

Incrimental changes do not necessarily equal large changes.

Incremental changes times a million generations do.

Making a beak grow larger is not the same as making brains and immune systems.

Why?

"Time ate my homework" is not good enough.

Actually, it is. In fact, it is the central concept that makes evolution work and that's why the current crop of fairytale believers are so keen to deny deep-time and push the young earth nonsense. They know that the one thing that does make evolution possible - and obviously possible to even fairly dull people - is the huge timescales geologists uncovered in the late 1700s and early 1800s. If they can get people to doubt that then they can shift them off evolution, science, and rational thought, and get them to post money for quack miracles performed on daytime TV. Which, ultimately is what all organised religion is about when you get down to it.

Time, in this case, not only ate your homework, it is your homework.

TWW

Re:Factually inacurate

[Mr. Slippery]

Jesus clarified the problem in the New Testament when he explained that lusting after someone you're not married to is a sin.

That's no "clarification" at all. I am entirely capable of lusting after a hottie whether she is dressed or not, and capable of viewing a naked person whom I don't find attractive without a bit of lust. (And my hormonal reaction is in no way a "sin", an "error", it is exactly healthy functioning of the male human animal. If one posits some sort of "creator" or designer" of human beings, I'm functioning entirely according to their requirements spec when I see a cute redhead go by and my heart skips a beat. Now, what I do in response to that lust, may be wise or may be stupid...)

We find naked people extra-sexy only because we live in a culture that tells us that nakedness is sexy. Spend a few days in a clothing-optional environment and the excitement quickly dissipates - indeed you may find people wearing sexy clothes more interesting than the naked ones!

In fact, this whole "war" between science and religion is doing horrendous things to both sides. Let science be science and let religion be religion.

The problem is clarifying what is "religion". As long as people try to use religion to understand or explain objective consensual reality, and posit all sort of supernaturalism and superstitions, conflict with science is inevitable. And sadly, that's pretty much the bulk of contemporary mainstream American Christianity.

The reason these people feel threatened is because if you take away this sort of gobbledygook, there's not much left in the religions that they've made the center of their lives.

Meanwhile, you're got people like Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, some of the more contemplative Catholics and Jews, many Western Buddhists, a large percentage of Neopagans, a bunch of Sufis, and others using religious tools of myth, ritual, and contemplation to understand their subjective internal worlds. They know that the question of how old the earth is will not be settled by these means, and is in fact irrelevant to the question of how we should best live our lives.

It's unfortunate that the term "religion" has to be stretched to cover all of these.

What scares me

[SABME]

What scares me is not that people believe this stuff, but that people who believe this stuff are getting into public office and passing laws that affect me. I've read more than one message in this thread decrying other posters for speaking out against the Creationist museum. I ask you to please consider your obligation as a US citizen (if you are a US citizen) to participate in the democratic process.

If our elected officials change our government such that it adopts policies in line with Creationist views, and you disagree with those views, it is your right -- your obligation -- to express your contrary opinion in spoken and written form, as well as in the voting booth. The mere existence of a Creationist museum scares me because it means that there are enough voters to push our government in what I feel is a bad direction. The Creationists have a right to have the museum and express their views. But I have a right, and a duty, to express my views that they are mistaken, to argue against their beliefs.

Here's a thought experiment to illustrate my point: Imagine that all medical research and treatment, everywhere in the US from now on, had to adhere to strict supervision by a board of politicians and clergy with fundamentalist views. Now wait 100 years. What do you think the state of US medical technology would be in such a case?

Re:What scares me

[cyborg_zx]

Just don't be so quick to judge because it has a 'religious' source.

It doesn't work that way - one MUST judge that any source that is unable to show the process by which it gets to its claims as producing fundamentally unreliable ones. Even those who abide by these religious claims understand this simple idea which is why they are so desperate to make it legitimate by tacking 'science' onto everything they do - and that's because science has proven itself as a methodology by which reliable claims can be shown.

Process. Process. Process.

Some Quick Thoughts....

[queenb**ch]

1) How does one express an epic level eye roll in text?
2) I am the only one that thinks that they put this thing in Kentucky because they think that everyone there is an inbred hill billy who won't know any better? (Not saying that everyone from Kentucky *is* an inbred hill billy but that the people who put the museum there think this)
3) Haven't we figured out by now religion and science don't mix? Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and who knows who else?
4) Umm....the book of Genesis doesn't exactly print out a recipe for world building and population. If it said something like 2 cups of flour, 1 cup of butter.....bake at 350 for 20 minutes, I might be willing to buy this. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't. Instead it gives us a big allegorical story and makes all sorts of references about the fact that time for God doesn't pass like it does for us humans. I myself see no conflict between evolution and religion. They are answers to separate questions - Why and How.
5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".
6) Am I the only one who really questions the validity of the King James version, the one that most of the swear is "true and correct"? King James had all sorts of things tucked into his translation that supported his divine right to rule. It was politically motivated and PAID FOR by a King - as in "You didn't do what I said. Off with his head!" kind of a King at that.
7) What about the places where the Bible contradicts itself? Since its the literal word of God, that makes God wrong and since God is infallible, he can't be wrong, therefore - using their own logic - God did not write the Bible OR God isn't God.

Oh, but we can ignore all of the historical facts because we have "faith".

2 cents,

QueenB.

Re:Some Quick Thoughts....

[howardd21]

Your argument assumes that an omnipotent, omnipresent being would always prevent something they would not personally do or agree with. You are going to have to do a little better than that. While not omnipotent, anybody with kids knows that you may have the authority and power to stop them from doing something out of your wishes, but you may allow it for various reasons.

Re:Some Quick Thoughts....

[JonathanBoyd]

3) Haven't we figured out by now religion and science don't mix? Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and who knows who else?

Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion and he is recorded as wanting to die catholic with confession etc. If you take a look at two of the greatest ever scientist, Faraday and Maxwell, you'll see that they were evangelical Christians who played in active role in teaching the Bible in their local churches. Alister McGrath, the previous principle of Wycliffe College, the theological college of Oxfod University, got his first PhD in Biophysics. A large proportion of Christian students in Oxford are scientists, medics, mathematicians and engineers.

Try telling them that Christianity and science don't mix.

Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book

Wow, no sweeping generalisations or assumptions there.

swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible"

Actually, the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, with a handful of Aramaic. Translations have been made into a variety of languages over the years, but when a new translation is made, people don't take the most recent translation in another language then put it into their own; they take the most reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and start over from them. seriously, read the translation notes from something like the NIV or the English Standard Version and see how absurd your allegation is. Modern translations are superior to older ones because we have more and better manuscripts available and are better at translating them.

Am I the only one who really questions the validity of the King James version, the one that most of the swear is "true and correct"?

Where do you get the idea that most people swear the KJV is the only true and correct version? There are quite a few vocal people about it, but most churches use one out of NIV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NLT and serious scholars end to recommand translations like NASB and ESV.

7) What about the places where the Bible contradicts itself? Since its the literal word of God, that makes God wrong and since God is infallible, he can't be wrong, therefore - using their own logic - God did not write the Bible OR God isn't God.

Sure, if we go along with your false dichotomy that anything you think is a contradiction must be a contradiction and the explanations of those who know the Bible better, have studied it considerably more and arrive at a different conclusion are clearly wrong.

Oh, but we can ignore all of the historical facts because we have "faith".

Pot. Kettle. Black. Do some research.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[miskatonic alumnus]

So are you against all fiction books, cartoons and television?

There's a big difference --- the producers and consumers of Bugs Bunny, James Bond, and Star Wars don't promote those things as being real and don't attempt to substitute events depicted therein for science. It is understood that they are strictly entertainment.

Whether it's a movie or a religion that's false, neither of them are really harming you, personally... I wouldn't think.

Ask Salman Rushdie about that.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Johnny5000]

Not all religions promote falsehoods either.

Name one.

Re:Just to present more than one side

[ZombieWomble]

Have any of you gentle readers ever heard of such distinguished SCIENTISTS as Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Johannes Kepler? These men were not ignorant and uninformed and above all they were certainly no anti-scientific, but they believed that God created the world. Appeal to authority has no place in a scientific debate. If these scientists produced scientific arguments for the existence of God, wonderful, lets see it. If not, their beliefs are just that - beliefs - are not based on any sort of scientific fact, and are as subject to critique as anyone else's.

Having said that, the scientific community is typically quite open to new ideas and concepts when they are put forth in a rational fashion. The issue comes when there is significant disproof of a concept, and yet its proponents insist on being given "fair treatment". A prime example is the current fear of "electrosensitivty", where people are convinced that Wifi/mobile phones etc are giving them headaches and so forth. The idea was actively investigated and it was found that, although many patients suffered real symptoms, they were not correlated to the presence of microwave radiation, and the idea was largely dismissed. However there is still a growing group of 'sufferers' who claim that their problems need to be investigated, that the scientific community is ignoring them, and so forth. People with an entrenched opinion tend to only see the surveys which support their cause, while work which investigates their argument but does not support it often ends up getting dismissed out of hand (often as part of a conspiracy of some sort).

Re:Factually inacurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually God didn't lie. After eating the fruit man was then cursed with death, disease, and dishonesty, which drew us further from our likeness of God and more towards the likeness of beasts.

Re:^BLIND Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[pkulak]

Faith is the opposite of reason. They can only both exist in the same mind to the detriment of each other.

A Christian viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Christian, I've been dreading the opening of this museum. It can only undermine what little dwindling respect remains for the Bible and for God.

Not all Christians believe the King James Version is a perfect literal translation, and therefore that earth was created in less than a literal week. Some of us are at least willing to accept that the ancient word translated "day" in Genesis has more possible translations than "a 24 hour period", and dinosaurs never walked among humans.

Another example: their model of the ark isn't just unrealistic, it's unscriptural--the Bible clearly states the ark of the flood was box-shaped. Sure, this might seem like a petty point compared to some of the more obvious and scientific blunders, but it only goes to support the point that this museum is more interested in pandering to neo-Christian tradition than explaining Bible truth.

Re:A Christian viewpoint

[gfxguy]

I agree. I believe in God, and I can even accept Jesus Christ (I have to try real hard, though), but I don't accept any sort of literal translation of the bible and, in fact, I think it's mostly fables created then for the same reasons fables are created now - to keep people in line.

This sort of thing is just ridiculous. There was a funny bit on the Simpsons (Ok, there's ALWAYS a funny bit on the Simpsons) when Homer, after having the crayon removed from his head, proves God can't exist. Flanders, instead of challenging his beliefs, burns it.

Sounds about right. It's funny 'cause it's true.

Re:A Christian viewpoint

[Rei]

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Example:

Scene: A woman is talking with a man from Scotland over breakfast.

---
Woman: Would you like some catsup on your eggs?

Man: Ack, no! No true Scotsman would eat catsup on his eggs!

Woman: But my uncle is from Scotland, and he eats catsup on his eggs.

Man: Like I said. No *true* Scotsman would eat catsup on his eggs.
---

The fallacy this man is making is to change the definition from the generally accepted definition of a Scotsman (a person from Scotland) to his own, customized definition. If an individual is allowed to redefine terms at will, the very concept of language becomes useless. His definition serves as little more than an ad hominem attack against the woman's uncle.

In short, making attacks based on definitions that aren't widely accepted is counterproductive. The widely accepted definition for "Christian" covers only a few key points -- believe in God the father, belief in Jesus the son, Jesus was crusified by the Romans, died and was resurrected, etc. Almost all (not all, but "enough") people who call themselves Christian agree with these points that it can be considered generally accepted. On the other hand, my partner believes that Catholics aren't Christians because of their use of idols. Well, I know a lot of Catholics who would take issue with that. The use of idols isn't widely agreed upon as being part or not part of Christianity, and thus trying to redefinie "Christianity" to include or exclude idols falls into the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The same applies to interpreting "day" in Genesis as a literal day. In America, at least, about half of people who call themselves Christians would agree with that, and half would disagree. It's a fallacy to define Christianity based on one faction's definition. Now, if 98% of Christians agreed that it had to be literal...

Re:A Christian viewpoint

[camg188]

Since when did being a Christian mean that you have to literally believe everything in the Bible?

Re:A Christian viewpoint

[camg188]

"I've been dreading the opening of this museum." -indeed. An artist that uses a brush, or a spray can, or a computer still "creates" art. So why can't God use evolution to create something? Because it doesn't fit the model described in Genesis? The bible was written by people with no concept of modern science and technology or knowledge of the formation of the earth. Even if divinely inspired, they would be expected to write with a frame of reference based on the world they lived in.

Re:A Christian viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholic position is that God created the world by some means, but it does not take sides in how exactly it was done. Evolution is entirely consistent with that point of view, and almost all priests--like almost all educated people of any faith or lack thereof--would agree evolution is leading theory of what mechanism God used to create biological diversity.

Re:A Christian viewpoint

[adminstring]

Although the Bible has been used to keep people in line, it takes quite a stretch of interpretation to get that kind of a spin on it. Jesus was a radical rabbi who preached a very rigorous morality which did not favor the rich and powerful, and did not promote "family values." He told his followers "If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple," and "Let the dead bury their dead." He caused a scene with the moneychangers at the temple, and told his followers to sell all they had and give it to the poor.

If I were to write a book to keep people in line, I would keep this sort of thing out of it. It's too likely to inspire someone like Martin Luther King, Jr. to incite the underclass to get out of line.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Johnny5000]

Let them be. They are only fooling themselves. I think it's safe to say that they are truly a minority group, and this is their chance to have a moment in the sun. The rest of us know better and can safely ignore them, unless they intend to force us to see things their way. Then the gloves come off.

I think that's the reason why so many people have a problem with the museum.
It's not just the work of a few isolated idiots- they have an organized effort to teach their
idiocy to millions of kids in schools.

So the gloves are off already, and rightfully so.
Hopefully the attention given to the museum will serve to discredit them further,
but I'm not exactly holding out hope for that.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[MightyYar]

The problem is that once in a while these whack-jobs get elected to a school board, or worse. There wasn't even any pointing and laughing during the Republican debate where THREE of the candidates "don't believe" in evolution. Arkansas Governor Huckabee even went so far as to say:

"It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president," Huckabee said. "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States." To borrow a diety for a second, JESUS CHRIST, this guy has a fucked-up world view. The President of the United States, leader of the free world, should not be expected to accept one of the most widely-accepted theories in the scientific world??? What is relevant, exactly? When a candidate rejects gravity in favor of "divine molecular sucking"?

Christians aren't persecuted, get over it

[spun]

Nice "spycology" there, bringing up "transposing" of feelings. Projection is the term you want, but it is not the all purpose "I'm rubber, you're glue" kind of rejoinder you're making it out to be. I suggest you read some more books on "spycology" before trying to apply it in a debate. In any case, its a transparent attempt at poisoning the well.

Sorry, but it IS the same science that makes cars, TVs, and all our modern conveniences that says the universe is a certain age. You are no scientist and have no understanding of science. It all hangs together in a vast web of interrelations. If one part of that web were false, it would have ripple effects on all of the rest of science. You can't just isolate the part that says the universe is X years old from the part that, say, lets us make televisions.

No one hates you for your religious views. Get over your Christian persecution complex. Christians control this country and dominate the political and social landscape. You people are not persecuted. We think your religion is stupid, and we think people shouldn't pay any attention to it. That is not the same as hating you.

Re:Christians aren't persecuted, get over it

[spun]

You are either an idiot, or the best damn troll Slashdot has ever seen. In either case, I've made my point and I don't think anything you've said has refuted word one of it in the eyes of anyone with half a brain.

I don't hate you. I'm sorry you see the world the way you do, it must get very lonely. As for science, I'm sorry, but if radiocarbon dating were wrong in any significant way, the basics of chemistry would be different and your car wouldn't run. Science all hangs together in one vast web of interrelations. It is vaster and more beautiful than any religion, and it saddens me you can not see it.

Making fun of your spelling is a kind of poisoning the well too, and I'm sorry. It doesn't confirm my beliefs. Not only don't I need my beliefs confirmed, I have no beliefs. I don't believe that the floor will stay solid when I step on it. I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't disbelieve anything either. It's a nice way to go through life. Everything is new and one is continually surprised by little things.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[spun]

Hitler was a Christian. Science does not take away any meaning to life. Religion does not bring any meaning to life. You are free to create your own meaning, using religion, science, or anything else you find. No one is forcing any opinions on you. Disagreement is not force. Torturing someone until they recant their beliefs and agree to yours is force, and science has never done that. We think your beliefs are incorrect and foolish. Saying so is not forcing anything on you. You are free to say otherwise, and believe whatever you like. You do not have the right to force us to keep quiet.

You are free to leave the discussion, to ask that people refrain from insults (and saying "I don't believe you" IS NOT an insult, sorry), and to state your opinions.

Religion is a means of control

[Dracos]

Always was, always will be. This facility is a manifest reaction to the loss of that control.

What I enjoy, is that creationists spend most of their time on evolution (biology), and a little on geology. They don't bother arguing physics anymore. Have any of these people ever said quantum anything is the work of the devil? No, and here's why.

It is said that people fear what they don't understand; this isn't completely true. In order to fear something, one must understand it at least enough to arrive at the conclusion that "this is bad". Fire burns. Animals attack. The people who would attack quantum theory have such a complete lack of understanding of it that they have no reason to fear it.

Technology is the practical application of science. This building itself was designed by men, using geometry, physics and chemistry, and tools based upon them: pencils, paper, computers, glue, whatever. We know these people are cherry picking facts to justify their beliefs. They are obviously cherry picking their sciences also.

For centuries, every denomination has been cherry picking dogma and doctrine to further their method of controlling the populace. It would be naive to assume they wouldn't cherry pick the science they use to justify the basis of their primitive fears. If the populace fears nothing, it cannot be controlled.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[spun]

Buddhism is not a religion as it makes no mention of creator God's or a personal soul. In fact, it makes no claims that an individual could not verify for themselves. Buddha even said, don't take my word for it if it doesn't make sense to you. Buddhism is a philosophy.

Unitarians don't say anything at all. They're just a big social group that gets together to share in a feeling of spirituality, so I guess I'd call them a spiritual fellowship.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[sumdumass]

You don't need any of those to be a religion. According to the UN civil rights, not having a religion is in itself a religion protected by the freedom of religion.

If you want to define words and stuff specifically to prove yourself right, then you will only fool yourself.

The Bible never claims to be written by God

[WilliamSChips]

The writers of the bible claimed to be inspired by God, but no part of the Bible actually constitutes God's word, not even when Jesus speaks, as our minds rarely remember quotes exactly, and not a single book of the Bible was written by Jesus. I'm tired of the extremists from both sides telling me I can't accept the morality of Jesus without accepting every insane 4000-year-old metaphor given by people who had no word to literally explain what happened even if they knew.

Sheer ignorance.

[JeanPaulBob]

5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".

Wow. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more fundamentally ignorant statement on Slashdot. This translational game of telephone that you're proposing is divorced from all history. Textual transmission is nothing like what you're suggesting. Our English translations are not obtained from Latin texts; they are obtained from the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).

The Old Testament:
Originally written in Hebrew, except for three or four small sections written in Aramaic. The main Hebrew manuscripts we have now is called the Masoretic text, compiled by the Masoretes in the 9th & 10th centuries. It's a Hebrew manuscript, and does not come from any translational lineage. We also have the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament written before the time of Jesus.

The New Testament:
Originally written in Greek. We have that Greek. (We have many manuscripts copied at different times, some dating back to the second century.) We also have the early Latin translation called the Vulgate, but the Greek manuscripts we have did not come from the Vulgate. We have both. We also have some other early translations (e.g. into coptic/Egyptian language).

Now, there are some who think that the NT was originally in Aramaic. This is highly unlikely for much of the NT, written as letters to Greek Christians throughout the Roman empire. It may be more reasonable for the Gospels, and some of the letters written to primarily Jewish Christians. Hey, Luke's gospel account starts out with a statement that he'd sought out many witnesses as his research, and it's entirely likely that some of that was Aramaic.

So even granting Aramaic primacy for all the NT, the chain for the NT is Aramaic-->Greek. We have that Greek. For the OT, it's just Hebrew (with a little bit written in Aramaic). We have that, too. For both, we also have various later translations, but those translations are not part of the lineage that we have now. For instance, there is no Latin in the lineage of our OT manuscripts at all--that was a ridiculous error. (I.e., our Greek manuscripts are copied from earlier Greek manuscripts, back to the originals.) The English translations are from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, with no lineage of translation except possibly Aramaic-->Greek.

Re:Sheer ignorance.

[Castar]

Originally written in Hebrew, except for three or four small sections written in Aramaic. The main Hebrew manuscripts we have now is called the Masoretic text, compiled by the Masoretes in the 9th & 10th centuries.

Wait, what? So it's the original text, no translations or transcriptions, but it was only compiled in the 9th and 10th centuries, depicting events that occur up to 6000 years prior?

How can you make the assertion that such a lately-compiled work has not suffered any translational errors or transcription problems?

Granted, the GP's post does seem to be over the top, but I don't think your argument counters claims of "telephone" being played with the texts.

Re:Sheer ignorance.

[terjeber]

This translational game of telephone that you're proposing is divorced from all history.

I never understood why people who want to talk about the bible are often so stuck on whether it is literally, word for word, true or not. The bible is a horrible book about an insane divine entity whether it is literally true or "young girl" was mistranslated into "virgin" when written in Greek.

Take the story of Abraham. The dude's old. He has a kid. God wants to test him. So he tells him to kill his son. Burn him too. Dude doesn't like it, but eventually he agrees. Goes on to build the bonfire and all. Given his devotion, God eventually says: Dude, I was only joking, you don't have to kill him.

In the Christian faith system this is a beautiful story about loyalty. In the real world it is the story about a psychopathic megalomaniac who finds joy in tormenting other people and a weak idiot of a moron who goes along with the torture.

The correct response if God comes to you and asks you to kill your son is to spit God in the face and tell him to fuck off. If he insists, you get a gang of your best friends together and busts the knees of God. That is the correct response. God was a psychopath for demanding the sacrifice, Abraham was insane for accepting.

Being part of an organization that thinks this is a beautiful story marks you as a nut-case in my book, but that is just me.

Re:Factually inacurate

[jenkin sear]

Or the book of Job; it's damn hard to read that and think that the only one out of the three main characters (Job, God, and Satan) who wasn't a complete dick was Satan...

The guy is a true believer, and what does he get? His stuff is stolen, his children are murdered, his house is burned down, he gets cursed with the plague, wanders around in the wilderness, loses his friends, etc- and the whole thing is some lame test of his belief.

It's pretty clear that not only is God a setup artist, he's a malicious one as well. Maybe I'm just pissed about the 6 million of my co-religionists that he had chucked into ovens back in the 40s, but it's obvious that if there is a supreme being, he's probably an asshole.

Re:Evidence of atheist's cultural successes, pleas

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You are confusing corralation for causation and making an argument from ignorance. That, for example, Chairman Mao was atheist has not been shown to be the cause of his actions as a dicatator. If such were true, then it could be said that all Seventh Day Adventists are cult leaders because David Koresh was one.

Additionally, lack of precedent does not indicate impossibility. That you can not imagine how a society, that is not permeated by religion, can be peaceful, joyous, and enlightened does not preclude it from occurring, or having occurred.

So, unless you are planning on proving that the failures in Hitler's Germany, USSR, and Communist China are a direct result of atheism your argument holds no water.

Re:Factually inacurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Genesis 2:17 -- But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So. Either you read that literally and God is made to be a liar or you throw out Biblical literalism. Your choice.

Re:fucking revisionists

[JeanPaulBob]

If I read one more "no christian ever persucuted anyone evar" post, it'll be the millionth too many.

I imagine the quality of your discussions with Christians would improve if you didn't engage in this sort of flaming mischaracterization. The GP did not say that no Christian ever persecuted anyone. He didn't even say that Copernicus was never objected to on religious grounds; he said that Copernicus' bishop encouraged him to spread his research. In other words, the GP provided a bit of balance to the discussion, providing a more complete view--something you seem determined to prevent.

Science has been both opposed and promoted by religious people, on religious grounds.

Why is it always one or the other?

[d0rp]

Why can't it be both? I've never understood that. It's only really naive people who take the biblical creation story completely literally, especially when it's been translated so many times from the original. For example, when it says that the earth was created in six days that doesn't mean six twenty-four-hour periods. God could have just as easily taken his sweet time and created the world over millions of years (after all he invented everything that we use science to try and figure out), but try explaining that to people 2000 years ago...